The Cold Heart

Abstract

Mere reminders of money have been shown to cause socially “cold” behavior. Recent research suggests that the metaphor of “social coldness” is bodily grounded and thus linked to actual sensations of physical coldness. We therefore hypothesized that reminding individuals of money causes them to feel physically colder. This hypothesis was put to test in two studies, drawing on predictions from psychophysiological thermal perception. In Study 1, individuals who had been reminded of money perceived the air in the room as colder compared to a control group (an assimilation effect). Contrarily, in Study 2, they perceived water (a medium that was only momentarily experienced) as warmer compared to individuals not reminded of money (a contrast effect). Together these findings demonstrate that reminders of money cause sensations of actual physical coldness and add to the literature of both the psychological effects of money and human thermal perception.

Keywords

money embodiment coldness perception adaptation thermal perception

In his fairy tale “The Cold Heart,” Wilhelm Hauff tells the story of a man who exchanged his heart for money and a cold heart of stone. This tale reflects the popularly held belief that money and wealth change people and turn them into self-centered and socially cold individuals. Here we will argue that money does not only lead to social coldness as a vast body of literature suggests (e.g., Vohs, Mead, & Goode, 2008, 2006), but that the metaphor of money inducing a cold heart holds some literal truth in the sense that thinking about money indeed causes individuals to feel colder.

Money is Linked to Social Coldness

Money plays an important role in most people’s life. It is seen as the key to success, power, and social status. Because money is symbolic for these assets, its meaning goes far beyond its original purpose as a tool for exchange. It has even been likened to a drug that individuals succumb to during their striving for success, power, and status (Lea & Webley, 2006). Following from that, the reputation of money’s psychological consequences is not entirely favorable. For example, rich people are seen as competent but coldhearted (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2002). They are thought to focus on their own advancement, thereby neglecting the needs of others (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008). In line with this stereotype of the “coldhearted rich,” members of the upper class show less prosocial behavior, less empathy, and less social valuation for others (Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, & Keltner, 2010), but more greed (Piff, Stancato, Côté, Mendoza-Denton, & Keltner, 2012) compared to members of the lower class.

Interestingly, actual wealth is not a necessary ingredient; even mere thoughts of money suffice to cause socially cold behavior. For example, individuals who have been reminded of money (e.g., by grasping banknotes) show less inclination to help other people (Vohs, Mead, & Goode, 2006), place less importance on their social lives (Mogilner, 2010), and physically distance themselves from others (Vohs et al., 2006). Likewise, reminders of money cause individuals to cheat more frequently (Gino & Pierce, 2009) and to show a higher inclination to engage in behavior that could be harmful to other people (Reutner & Wänke, 2013). In sum, merely thinking of money leads to social coldness; or, to put it in a literary way, money causes coldhearted behavior.

Social Coldness Causes Physical Coldness

Recent research on embodiment has demonstrated that the metaphor of physical coldness for unsocial, self-centered behavior is more than a simple literal illustration (Landau, Meier, & Keefer, 2010). Instead, feelings of social and physical coldness are to some degree interchangeable (Bargh & Shalev, 2012). This overlap is thought to stem from early childhood experiences of physical warmth (or lack thereof), which are later abstracted to broader concepts of (social) warmth and coldness (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999; Williams, Huang, & Bargh, 2009). This “embodied” notion has been supported by findings showing that experiences of physical or social warmth lead to activation in the same brain regions (Inagaki & Eisenberger, 2013). Similarly, the sensation of physical coldness increases feelings of social coldness toward others (IJzerman & Semin, 2009). Conversely, social distance (IJzerman & Semin, 2010) and social coldness (Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008) cause feelings of physical coldness. In fact, feelings of physical coldness as a response to metaphorical social coldness do not seem to be a mere illusion of the mind. Instead, social coldness elicits actual physical responses observable in a decrease in skin temperature (IJzerman et al., 2012).

These findings reviewed above are reminiscent of the protagonist’s heart in “The Cold Heart,” which was not just metaphorically cold but—as it was made from stone—also physically cold. As reminders of money lead to social distance and these, in turn, lead to physical coldness, we propose that reminding people of money will not only trigger coldhearted behavior but in fact feelings of physical coldness. We will report two studies that empirically substantiate this argument. Before doing so, however, we briefly discuss various ways of how to measure thermal sensations.

The Assessment of Thermal Sensations

Perhaps the most straightforward way to assess changes in thermal sensations is to simply ask participants to indicate how warm or cold they feel. However, this method is rarely used in embodiment research (for an exception, see Inagaki & Eisenberger, 2013). Among other reasons, this is because warmth and coldness are confounded with their social dimensions (IJzerman & Semin, 2009) and hence social information might be activated and influence the response to reporting sensations of warmth or coldness. Somewhat relatedly, warmth and coldness differ in valence. While feeling warm is a positive experience, feeling cold is rather negative (Bargh & Shalev, 2012; IJzerman et al., 2012; Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008). Hence it is possible that participants might be more motivated to report feeling warm than feeling cold. Both reasons question the suitability of self-reports in this domain.

Assimilation Effects as Response to Adaptation

Given that directly asking participants for their sensations may prove problematic, the embodiment literature has developed more indirect, less obtrusive ways of measuring thermal sensations. Among these, ambient room temperature estimation has become the standard (e.g., IJzerman & Semin, 2010; Szymkow, Chandler, & IJzerman, 2012; Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008). In these studies, individuals are thought to rely on their feelings of warmth or coldness as a proxy to estimate ambient temperature. Why do internal bodily sensations act as a proxy for estimating an external thermal source such as room temperature? As argued in classical psychophysics, this is because the human body adapts quite quickly (within minutes) to a continuously experienced, moderate temperature such as the ambient temperature of a room (Hensel, 1973; Hensel & Schafer, 1984). As a result of adaptation, the ambient temperature is experienced as neutral (Helson, 1964a, 1964b). Because a temperature to which one has adapted is not actually consciously perceived, individuals use their bodily sensations of warmth or coldness to estimate the current room temperature. As a result, room temperature estimates are higher when one feels warm and lower when one feels cold (an assimilation effect). Study 1 capitalizes on these findings and tested the prediction that participants reminded of money experience an adapted temperature (i.e., the room temperature) to be colder than control participants.

Contrast Effects as Response to Nonadaptation

Interestingly, before the adaptation to an experienced temperature is completed, external sources of temperature are evaluated in comparison to the body temperature, resulting in contrast effects (Helson, 1964a, 1964b; Hensel, 1981; Hering, 1877; Tritsch, 1986, 1988). This has been most impressively demonstrated by Hering (1877) in his classical “three-bowls experiment” (see also, Weber, 1834, for a similar experiment). In this demonstration, the left and the right hand are simultaneously immersed in two bowls for several minutes so that complete adaptation can occur. The left-hand bowl contains cold water, whereas the right-hand bowl contains warm water. Next, both hands are placed in a third bowl containing lukewarm water. Even though they are objectively experiencing the same temperature, the left hand feels distinctly warm whereas the right hand feels distinctly cold (see also, Tritsch, 1986, 1988, for a replication and extension). This fascinating phenomenon can often be experienced in everyday life (e.g., when coming home from the cold and immediately feeling like one is hit by a wave of heat) and served as a foundation for Study 2. In particular, Study 2 tested the prediction that participants reminded of money experience a nonadapted temperature (i.e., lukewarm water after being adapted to room temperature) to be warmer than control participants (a contrast effect).

Study 1

Method

In Study 1, we relied on the standard measure of thermal sensations employed in embodiment research. We assessed feelings of physical coldness by asking participants to estimate the ambient temperature of the room they were located in—a measure known to result in assimilation effects (cf., IJzerman & Semin, 2010; Szymkow et al., 2012). We hypothesized that reminding participants of money would lead to a lower temperature estimate compared to reminding participants of control concepts.

Participants

Forty individuals (32 women, 8 men, M _age = 25.03, SD = 6.62) participated in an experiment on “perception of physical environment” in exchange for course credit. They were randomly assigned to a “money” or a “control” condition. We aimed for about 20 participants per cell.

Material and Procedure

Firstly, to control for individual variations in core temperature, the experimenter measured participants’ core body temperature by using an ear thermometer. For the money and control manipulation, we then followed a procedure employed by Reutner and Wänke (2013), in which participants placed their hand in a bowl filled either with 97 banknotes of various values (an equivalent of US$1,292) or with an equal number of similarly colored paper slips. Participants were asked to estimate the number of banknotes or paper slips. Participants were then asked to give various estimates on their surroundings. First they gave an estimate for the ambient temperature in degrees Celsius. To test whether the hypothesized effect of priming money is indeed specific to temperature, or whether it generally produces larger estimates, we subsequently asked participants to estimate the size of the room in square meters, the height of the ceiling, and the distance of the room’s floor to ground level in meters. In the meantime, the experimenter discretely noted the actual room temperature to be able to control for slight variations. Lastly, participants were probed for suspicion and debriefed. None of the participants mentioned money or influences on temperature perception in their comments.

Results

To test the hypothesis that reminding participants of money would lead them to feel physically colder and hence reduce their estimation of room temperature compared to control participants, we conducted an analysis of covariance with room temperature estimate (in degrees Celsius [degrees Fahrenheit in square brackets]) as dependent variable, priming as independent variable, and core body temperature and actual room temperature as covariates. As predicted, individuals in the money condition gave significantly lower estimates of room temperature (M = 21.33°C [70.39°F], SD = 1.62) compared to the control condition (M = 22.91°C [73.24°F], SD = 1.59), F(3, 36) = 8.36, p = .006, η_p ² = .19, CI of difference [−2.615, −.459]. Omitting one or both covariates does not alter the significance of the effect. Importantly, money did not affect any of the other estimates, ts < 1, indicating that priming money had an influence on temperature perception only. This rules out alternative explanations, suggesting that money priming might have led to lower estimates in general.

Discussion

The findings of Study 1 suggest that individuals feel physically colder after being reminded of money. Participants perceived the room temperature as colder than individuals who had not been reminded of money. As temperature to which one has fully adapted to seems neutral and is hence difficult to estimate, participants used their feelings of coldness as a proxy to judge the temperature in the room, resulting in an assimilation effect as demonstrated in previous studies (cf., IJzerman & Semin, 2010).

Study 2

Method

Study 2 aimed to corroborate and extend the findings of Study 1 with a different measure of subjective thermal sensations predicted to elicit contrast rather than assimilation. Specifically, we designed a temperature reproduction task in which participants placed their hand in water while the water was heated. Participants were asked to indicate when the water had reached the temperature that had been experienced in a previous trial. Just like the three-bowls-experiment by Hering (1877), this task constitutes a sudden change in temperature (when participants place their hand in the water) that should disrupt coldness experiences triggered by the priming task. In line with previous studies on thermal perception (cf., Tritsch, 1986, 1988), such a disruption should result in a contrast effect, that is, if participants feel cold (vs. warm), they should judge the water temperature as warmer (vs. colder). We hence expected that participants primed with money (which causes them to feel colder) would experience water as warmer compared to control participants.

Participants

Sixty-two students (46 women and 16 men; M _age = 23.25, SD = 4.34) participated in the experiment. Because Study 2 employed a methodological approach previously untested in the realm of embodiment, we aimed for more statistical power with about 30 participants per cell.

Materials and Procedure

Participants were asked to place their hand in a water basin preheated to exactly 37°C [98.60°F] for 10 s and to give an estimate of the water’s temperature in order to control for a priori differences. Participants then completed the same money or control manipulation as in Study 1. In the meantime, the experimenter cooled the water down to an average of 31.14°C [88.05°F], SD = 1.34. Temperatures around 30°C [86°F] have been shown to be ideal to elicit contrast effects (Tritsch, 1986, 1988). Next, participants placed their hand into the basin again while it was being reheated. They indicated when they thought the water had reached its initial temperature by saying “stop.” As those who feel colder should perceive the water temperature as higher (cf., Helson, 1964a, 1964b; Tritsch, 1986, 1988), we hypothesized that participants reminded of money would stop at a lower temperature than participants in the control condition. To control for a priori differences in temperature perception, the core body temperature of each participant was measured at the beginning of the experiment. Participants were probed for suspicion and debriefed. None of the participants mentioned money or feelings of warmth or coldness in their responses.

Results

We performed an analysis of covariance with the actual water temperature assessed at the time participants said “stop” as dependent variable and money versus control priming as independent variables. Participants’ body temperature, their initial estimate of the water temperature, and the actual temperature of the water before reheating were entered as covariates. As hypothesized, participants who had been reminded of money indicated that the water had reached its prior temperature at a lower actual temperature (M = 34.71°C [94.48°F], SD = 1.73) compared to participants in the control group (M = 35.61°C [96.10°F], SD = 1.66), F(4, 57) = 5.12 p = .028, η_p ² =.08, CI of difference [−.1.765, −.117]. Omitting any of the covariates does not alter the significance of the effect. There were no significant differences between the conditions on any other variables, all ts < 1.

Discussion

Using a temperature reproduction task, we conceptually corroborated the findings of Study 1, suggesting that reminders of money cause individuals to feel colder. In contrast to their colder self-perception, the water seemed warmer to participants in the money condition than to the participants in the control group. This caused them to indicate that the water had reached its prior temperature at a lower actual temperature compared to participants in the control group.

One could argue that money priming motivates participants to quit earlier in Study 2. However, recent findings demonstrating that money priming causes higher self-control (Boucher & Kofos, 2012) and increased endurance (Vohs et al., 2006) render this alternative interpretation unlikely.

General Discussion

The results of two studies suggest that reminding individuals of money leads them to feel physically colder compared to individuals not reminded of money. In Study 1, reminders of money led to a lower estimate of room temperature. In Study 2, participants primed with money experienced a contrast effect of water temperature relative to their own feelings of coldness. They experienced water as warmer than participants not primed with money. With regard to thermal perception in particular, our results are in line with previous research showing assimilation when judging adapted temperature (e.g., IJzerman & Semin, 2010; Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008) but contrast to bodily sensations when judging nonadapted, newly experienced temperature (Tritsch, 1986, 1988). That both an assimilation and a contrast effect were observed in our studies strongly supports the conclusion that individuals indeed felt physically colder because alternative explanations, such as demand effects, would predict either an assimilation or a contrast effect but not both. Although we were mainly interested in subjectively experienced bodily sensations, the contrast effect in Study 2 even allows for the speculation that participants’ hands had objectively cooled after the money priming. This would be in line with previous studies suggesting that the experience of social coldness leads to cooling of the hands rather than just the perception of physical coldness (IJzerman et al., 2012).

The present findings allow for important conclusions that add to the literature of both the psychological effects of money and the experience of thermal sensations. With respect to the latter, our findings demonstrate that subtle environmental cues—in this case, mere reminders of money—can have consequences for thermal sensations. Importantly, these simple changes in personal environment need not be related to temperature in order to have an impact. The possibility to influence thermal sensations by simple means of environmental cues seems especially intriguing in times in which energy consumption and ways to reduce it are debated (e.g., regulating airconditioning).

With regard to money—given its ubiquity in everyday life—it is of high relevance to investigate money’s influence on individuals’ experiences. Offering a novel and previously unexplored perspective on money research, our findings suggest that mere reminders of money cause perceived physical coldness. Thus, moving away from the predominant focus on behavioral (e.g., Vohs et al., 2006) or cognitive (e.g., Hansen, Kutzner, & Wänke, 2013) consequences of money thoughts, our findings offer fascinating insights into how money makes people feel. Even though Wilhelm Hauf intended his “Cold Heart” to be a metaphor, this metaphor might hold some literal truth. While money won’t make anyone’s heart turn to cold stone, it does make the body feel colder.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Amira Bösch, Patrizia Catania, Severine Markovic, Matthias Stutz, and Sarah Thöni for their help in conducting the research as well as Caroline Tremble for language corrections.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant Number 100014\_152588).

References

Bargh

J. A.

Shalev

(2012). The substitutability of physical and social warmth in daily life. Emotion, 12, 154–162. doi:10.1037/a0023527

Boucher

H. C.

Kofos

M. N.

(2012). The idea of money counteracts ego depletion effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 804–810. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.003

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Fiske

S. T.

Glick

(2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Fiske

S. T.

Glick

(2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878

Gino

Pierce

(2009). The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of wealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 142–155. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.003

Hansen

Kutzner

Wänke

(2013). Money and thinking: Reminders of money trigger abstract construal and shape consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 1154–1166. doi:10.1086/667691

Helson

(1964a). Adaptation-level theory. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Helson

(1964b). Current trends and issues in adaptation-level theory. American Psychologist, 19, 26–38.

10.

Hensel

(1973). Thermoreceptors. In Iggo

(Ed.), Handbook of sensory physiology (Vol. 2, pp. 79–110). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

11.

Hensel

(1981). Thermoreception and temperature regulation. London, England: Academic Press.

12.

Hensel

Schafer

(1984). Thermoreception and temperature regulation in man. In Ring

E. F. J.

Philips

(Eds.), Recent advances in medical thermology (pp. 51–64). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-7697-2

13.

Hering

(1877). Grundzüge einer theorie des temperatursinns. Sitzungsberichte Der Akademie Der Wissenschaften in Wien, Abteilung 3, 75, 101–135.

14.

IJzerman

Gallucci

Pouw

W. T. J. L.

Weiβgerber

S. C.

Van Doesum

N. J.

Williams

K. D.

(2012). Cold-blooded loneliness: Social exclusion leads to lower skin temperatures. Acta Psychologica, 140, 283–288. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.05.002

15.

IJzerman

Semin

G. R.

(2009). The thermometer of social relations: Mapping social proximity on temperature. Psychological Science, 20, 1214–1220. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02434.x

16.

IJzerman

Semin

G. R.

(2010). Temperature perceptions as a ground for social proximity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 867–873. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.015

17.

Inagaki

T. K.

Eisenberger

N. I.

(2013). Shared neural mechanisms underlying social warmth and physical warmth. Psychological Science, 24, 2272–2280. doi:10.1177/0956797613492773

18.

Lakoff

Johnson

(1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York, NY: Harper-Collins.

19.

Landau

M. J.

Meier

B. P.

Keefer

L. A.

(2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1045–1067. doi:10.1037/a0020970

20.

Lea

S. E. G.

Webley

(2006). Money as tool, money as drug: The biological psychology of a strong incentive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 161–209. doi:10.1017/S0140525X06009046

21.

Mogilner

(2010). The pursuit of happiness: Time, money, and social connection. Psychological Science, 21, 1348–1354. doi:10.1177/0956797610380696

22.

Piff

P. K.

Kraus

M. W.

Côté

Cheng

B. H.

Keltner

(2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 771–784. doi:10.1037/a0020092

23.

Piff

P. K.

Stancato

D. M.

Côté

Mendoza-Denton

Keltner

(2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 4086–4091. doi:10.1073/pnas.1118373109

24.

Reutner

Wänke

(2013). For my own benefit or for the benefit of others: Reminders of money moderate the effects of self-related versus other-related persuasive arguments. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 220–223. doi:10.1177/1948550612450052

25.

Szymkow

Chandler

IJzerman

(2012). Warmer hearts, warmer rooms: Focusing on positive communal but not agentic traits increases estimates of ambient temperature. Social Psychology, 44, 168–177.

26.

Tritsch

M. F.

(1986). Zur psychophysik der temperaturwahrnehmung: Die erfassung von information über temperatur und stoff. Dissertation, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz.

27.

Tritsch

M. F.

(1988). The veridical perception of object temperature with varying skin temperature. Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 531–540. doi:10.3758/BF03207741

28.

Vohs

K. D.

Mead

Goode

(2008). Merely activating the concept of money changes personal and interpersonal behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 208–212.

29.

Vohs

K. D.

Mead

N. L.

Goode

M. R.

(2006). The psychological consequences of money. Science, 314, 1154. doi:10.1126/science.1132491

30.

Weber

(1834). De tactu (pp. 44–174). Leipzig, Germany: Koehler.

31.

Williams

Huang

Bargh

(2009). The scaffolded mind: Higher mental processes are grounded in early experience of the physical world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1257–1267. doi:10.1002/ejsp.665

32.

Zhong

C.-B.

Leonardelli

G. J.

(2008). Cold and lonely: does social exclusion literally feel cold? Psychological Science, 19, 838–842. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02165.x